CR would be more useful if it were three numbers, not one

[PhoenixPhyre]

Preface--I'm not one of those who thinks CR is worthless. It has its place, even if I, as an experienced DM who doesn't use XP, mostly ignores it and doesn't calculate it (or encounter budgets) for my games.

CR, as most of us know, is initially calculated as the average of two properties: offensive CR and defensive CR.

Offensive CR attempts to answer (fairly roughly) the question "What level of character can I bring from 100% HP to 0% HP in a single round if I get lucky?" An offensive CR X creature can generally take a baseline[1] "light" character (d6 HD, +2 CON) of the same level down if they get lucky, but are highly unlikely to kill them outright or drop a "heavy" character to 0 in one round.

Defensive CR attempts to answer (fairly roughly) the question "Against a party of 4 baseline characters of what level am I likely to survive three rounds of focused fire?" A defensive CR X creature can generally (unless the party gets lucky/they get unlucky or has great tactics or is above the baseline) survive 2-4 rounds against a party of baseline level X characters.

But there are enormous gaps here--most creatures are not balanced (ie dCR = oCR = CR) or even close. For CR 1 monsters[2], the adjusted defensive CR ranges from 0 to 3; the adjusted offensive CR ranges from 1/2 to 4. And then there are tremendous outliers such as the published full-caster NPCs:

Mage: aOCR = 8, adCR = either 1/4 or 1/2 (without or with mage armor).
Archmage: aOCR = 12[3], adCR = 5.

These kinds of monsters die almost instantly...or they wreck face. In my experience, fights including them are much less fun than advertised, especially at near-parity. They get dogpiled and wrecked before they can do much of anything. This makes their published CR somewhat of a lie, and certainly less useful than expected

----------

So what I'd like to see[4] is for monsters to be published with three CRs--defensive, offensive, and "plays like" (ie the value after playtesting). XP would be based on the third number, but having the extra information there (even if it's not super prominent) would help DMs, I believe, make better monster-picking decisions.

[1] no variants PHB-based, without combat-relevant magic items until much higher levels (and then really only to pierce resistance and immunity). Not anti optimized, but definitely not synergistic or played with high skill.
[2] from the "mainline" monster books, not including setting or adventure books (which I don't own)
[3] This one's really annoying to calculate, and can swing upward to nearly 20 if you pick different spells, even if you don't cherry pick the best blasting ones. And is probably a bad representation, because offensive CR mainly only measures damage. This is likely an underestimate
[4] even though I have no expectation of ever seeing this

[Composer99]

Something like a monster Offence Rating and Defence Rating, distinct from Challenge Rating?

I dig it.

[Rynjin]

I checked out of taking 5e seriously as a game when Archmage was listed as a CR 12 threat, period. Was p. dumb to come across in my first 5e game.

[Greywander]

These kinds of monsters die almost instantly...or they wreck face. In my experience, fights including them are much less fun than advertised, especially at near-parity. They get dogpiled and wrecked before they can do much of anything. This makes their published CR somewhat of a lie, and certainly less useful than expected

Glass cannons. Yeah, it would be kind of helpful to have monsters fit into rough categories so that the DM knows how to use them. I could see having stat blocks label monsters in order to give the DM an idea of how to use them. Labels like mook (disposable monster meant to be used in large numbers), brute (few special abilities, just straightforward damage dealing and tankiness), and so on. These wouldn't have to be super strict, either. A dragon is mostly a brute (very tanky with high damage output), but they have special tricks up their sleeve that, say, an ogre doesn't.

I've actually thought about if anyone had sat down and categorized monsters with labels like this; I'm curious what categories they would use, and what they would call them. For example, I don't know that I'd limit mages to a "glass cannon" label; glass cannon implies nothing more than high damage output with weak defenses. Mages are often much more dangerous when employing non-damaging spells, either control or support. Some labels I might consider would be:

• Mook. Individually weak but dangerous in large numbers. Vulnerable to AoE abilities.
• Brute. Tough to take down and hits like a truck. Requires advanced tactics to mitigate damage while bringing them down. Some brutes depreciate to stronger-than-average mooks as the players level up.
• Blaster. High damage output but weak defenses. Usually ranged, either archers or mages. Generally evasive; they require speed or powerful ranged attacks of your own to bring them down.
• Support. Uses spells or special abilities to hamper their enemies or enhance their allies. Weak on their own, but a threat in the presence of their allies.
• Spider. Monster with strange or unique abilities. Usually requires specialized tactics specific to that monster to bring down.

With this list in mind, a lot of mages would fall under both Blaster and Support, while a dragon would be both Brute and Blaster. Enemies like orcs would be Brutes at low levels, but Mooks at high levels. Examples of Spiders might include certain oozes, sphinxes, mimics, vampires, some of the more unique fiends, and so on.

Not saying this is definitive, but something like this could have been a helpful tool for the DM, so long as they (the devs or the DM) didn't adhere to it too slavishly. It makes more sense to design a monster first, then figure out which category to file it under, rather than designing a monster to fit a specific category from the start. In the latter case, you'll end up with a lot of similar monsters because they were all designed with the same principles in mind (e.g. being a brute or a blaster), and that's not as fun as having variety.

Edit: I probably should have added, it's not sufficient to know what type of monster something is, e.g. a glass cannon or a mook. You have to know as a DM how to deploy that monster. If your experience is that mages die immediately, making their CR look inflated, then the issue might be that you're not using them correctly. Mix them in with other monsters that get in the way of the players to prevent them from instantly taking down the mage. Now, the players will still look for ways to take down enemy mages as quickly as they can, and that's fine, just don't make it easy for them. For example, throw a brute at the party at the same time, with a swarm of mooks between the party and the mage. They can't ignore the brute, but they also can't reach the mage without going through the mooks, so they'll need a fair amount of cooperation and teamwork to take down the mage while distracting the brute.

[zlefin]

Rather than a full set of numbers, it might be more usable if there were a few letters or descriptors denoting certain problematic behaviors cr-wise.

Ie there might be a label GC for glass cannon.

If the baseline CR number is accurate; then offensive CR and defensive CR should fairly straight forwardly combine to make it. So I think you'd really only need 3 special labels; one for glass cannons, one for meat shields, and perhaps one for 'puzzle' monsters that could be tough or weak depending on having the appropriate counters.

[EggKookoo]

So what I'd like to see[4] is for monsters to be published with three CRs--defensive, offensive, and "plays like" (ie the value after playtesting). XP would be based on the third number, but having the extra information there (even if it's not super prominent) would help DMs, I believe, make better monster-picking decisions.

It seems like it's...

aoCR > adCR: glass cannon, you'll want a good healer, it'll hit hard but relatively easy to take down
aoCR < adCR: attrition fight, it won't likely burst anyone but it'll be a battle of endurance.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Glass cannons. Yeah, it would be kind of helpful to have monsters fit into rough categories so that the DM knows how to use them. I could see having stat blocks label monsters in order to give the DM an idea of how to use them. Labels like mook (disposable monster meant to be used in large numbers), brute (few special abilities, just straightforward damage dealing and tankiness), and so on. These wouldn't have to be super strict, either. A dragon is mostly a brute (very tanky with high damage output), but they have special tricks up their sleeve that, say, an ogre doesn't.

Fourth edition did exactly this. It also based hit points and damage and stuff on monster category, because asymmetrical design, but there were a lot of clever design ideas in there.

(The categories, for reference, were skirmisher, controller, soldier, brute, artillery, and lurker)

[JNAProductions]

Fourth edition did exactly this. It also based hit points and damage and stuff on monster category, because asymmetrical design, but there were a lot of clever design ideas in there.

(The categories, for reference, were skirmisher, controller, soldier, brute, artillery, and lurker)

I literally thought that’s what Grey was leading into.

Seriously-I don’t get the 4E hate. It’s a good system, even if it’s not very “D&Desque”.

[Greywander]

I never played 4e. TBH, I barely played 3.5/PF, really only a couple of sessions.

From what I've heard, the main "problem" with 4e was that it was vastly different from previous editions of D&D. If it hadn't carried the D&D name, it probably would have been considered a decent system for a specific type of play. I've heard it did some interesting things, but I've also heard that it was a bit too artificially mechanistic. For example, all classes getting abilities that were functionally similar to spells, except they didn't call them spells for the martial characters. Everything was so perfectly balanced that classes that should have felt wildly different instead felt too similar. Like an MMO, even.

So it sounds like it was a bit of a mixed bag. Some good ideas, but it catered to a more niche style of play that most people weren't looking for. Some of those ideas could have been recycled into 5e, and probably would have made it a better game, but the negative reaction to 4e caused them to abandon any attempt to carry it forward.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Seriously-I don’t get the 4E hate. It’s a good system, even if it’s not very “D&Desque”.

I think it comes down to "4e was different."

Most of the releases we've seen have been simple iterations. 3.5 wasn't much more than a collection of houserules and race/class/spell rewrites--a lot of the time I could show you a prestige class or statblock and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. 3.5 to Pathfinder was, again, basically just someone's houserules and rewrites. Details changed, but the core remained untouched.

Even 5e isn't that much of a change. Mechanics were simplified, magic was toned down, balance was improved, sourcebook bloat was reversed, but none of it was really new. Hell, some of the changes were so subtle we had to make guides pointing them out. By calling it a whole new edition WotC was able to bend the framework a little more, but compared to non-d&d games they're still almost indistinguishable.

But 4e? 4e was a revolution. Sacred cows were tossed aside left and right, underlying principles were completely changed, and new ideas appeared everywhere. Even the visual design of the books was completely different. It's easy to see why people claimed it "wasn't d&d," because it kind of wasn't--it was an complete reinvention of the game.

That's not to say it was perfect--far from it. There were deep enough systemic issues that you'd pretty much need a "4.5e" to fix them. But you have to give the designers credit for swinging for the moon.


(tl;dr: 4e tried to do something new, so people hated it.)

Some good ideas, but it catered to a more niche style of play that most people weren't looking for.

It wasn't so much catering to a niche style as it was doubling down on what makes d&d d&d as opposed to, say, Fate. D&d is not, and never has been, a particularly useful system for intrigue. It's not really that good at exploring new lands, focusing on the characters' personal traits and goals, or playing with shades of grey. I mean, you can do all that stuff, but there are other games that do it better.

D&D is, at its core, a combat game. It's about managing your resources and using your abilities to defeat a huge variety of foes. And I think almost everyone acknowledges that whatever its flaws, 4e was very good at that sort of thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I think almost everyone acknowledges that whatever its flaws, 4e was very good at that sort of thing.

I'm going to snip this little bit, because I disagree strongly with large chunks of the rest but it's not worth discussing here.

I'd take some exception to even the "very good at combat" thing. 4e (which I am not, by any means, strongly opposed to and would like to get a chance to actually play with a group that knew what they were doing) was good at one particular style of tactical play. At some levels. As long as you stayed within the rigid bounds it set (ie didn't fall into the character building traps, of which there were plenty and had the right equipment at each level, dictated mostly by the numbers). And even then, mid to higher level play was an utter slog even with the updated math. Extremely long turns, many interrupts (in the "things that interrupt the flow of someone's turn" sense), lots of abilities that felt like they hit like limp noodles, and drastically bloated monster HP. It had balance, to be sure, at extreme cost. And was inflexible and a very fragile balance. In my experience, 5e (as I play it anyway) is just about as balanced and there are a lot fewer potholes. I'd much rather run 5e combat than 4e combat.

On the flip side, I strongly prefer 4e's lore and cosmology (heresy, I know) and there are lots of interesting and useful ideas that I think would make 5e much better. I'm not as fond of the rigid monster math by categories, which is why I didn't suggest that style of construction. The monsters felt (as a DM) like they were just reskins of the same basic set of creatures with bigger numbers. And having to have 14 varieties of bear for the different level bands was obnoxious. I much prefer 5e's monster building process[1]. But things like 4e's rituals? That's something I want to bring back. And the concept (but not mechanics) behind skill challenges is useful.

[Toadkiller]

FASA Starship Combat System did this for their Star Trek combat simulator game thirty some years ago. Not really relevant to anything - but your post made me remember it.

[Gyor]

A fourth CR, based on out of combat utility, mostly for spells that Conjure creatures based on their CR.

[heavyfuel]

I checked out of taking 5e seriously as a game when Archmage was listed as a CR 12 threat, period. Was p. dumb to come across in my first 5e game.

TBF, the Archmage listed in the MM probably is CR 12, what with the terrible spell selection and ability scores distribution, plus lack of any signature Wizard feature.

[KorvinStarmast]

D&D is, at its core, a combat game. It's about managing your resources and using your abilities to defeat a huge variety of foes. And I think almost everyone acknowledges that whatever its flaws, 4e was very good at that sort of thing.

WoTC D&D is, at its core, a combat game. D&D originally was a game that rewarded picking and choosing when you engaged in combat and when you tried to avoid it. Combat was certainly a feature, but the higher lethality index required a different approach to where and when one engaged in combat. The risks were high.

In dungeon crawls, the environment was an enemy, as often as not, as well as some of the creatures encountered therein.

It has taken me a while to begin to understand a critique of the WoTC style of D&D as being "video gamey" - while I think that it's a reductionist take on the game, the significant body of work represented in MUDS, text based dungeon crawls, dungeon crawls like Diablo, MMORPGs informs the experience base of the potential player base in a different way than movies, books, comic books, TV shows, pulps, and wargaming that informed the ideas behind where it started.

That, and magic being much easier to use now.

Tunnels and Trolls did some interesting variations with "saving rolls" that end up also being skill checks and that award unique XP style rewards for both passing and failing those saving rolls. One of the things that has come out by way of internet discussions is the whole slew of things DMs did that weren't codified in the D&D books, like the awarding of XP for disarming traps for example.

Why didn't those end up in the books in TSR era D&D (and me playing a lot of thief/rogue, that's a question with some personal frustration built into it). At least the DMG and Tasha's in this edition make some effort toward putting some XP meat into such pursuits.

Not sure how much CR any of you all put into traps, but it's a tool that I use.

[noob]

A fourth CR, based on out of combat utility, mostly for spells that Conjure creatures based on their CR.

and a fifth cr: "ability to synergise with other monsters"
Because some gms toss intentionally monsters that benefits from the help of each other then undervalue the actual difficulty of the fight for XP rewards due to that.

[EggKookoo]

Not sure how much CR any of you all put into traps, but it's a tool that I use.

Calculating CR for a trap is pretty easy. A trap usually deals some kind of damage, and usually requires a check to bypass, which means a target DC. Both of those are numbers you can use to determine an offensive and defensive CR. At that point a trap is just an encounter (or part of one).

I throw traps and "puzzles" (which are really just traps) at my players all the time, and they earn XP for them.

[Unoriginal]

I literally thought that’s what Grey was leading into.

Seriously-I don’t get the 4E hate. It’s a good system, even if it’s not very “D&Desque”.

If a system isn't D&Desque, then it has no business being a D&D edition.


4e was designed as a tabletop small-team tactical game to sell minis. I'm not joking, or using hyperbole here. 4e minis were meant to be the new Magic: the Gathering cards, or at least similar enough for the corporate suits to be pleased.

It succeeded at being a tabletop small-team tactical game, but didn't sell enough minis to please the corporate suits.

(tl;dr: 4e tried to do something new, so people hated it.)

4e tried very hard to not be D&D, in its design, its concepts and its lore, which obviously didn't please a lot of people who wanted to play D&D.

Also while 4e had some good ideas, it also had very bad ones. Like making all skill DCs increase as the PCs' levels increase in order to maintain the same chances of success for their whole career, or the whole "take any monster from the goblin to the elder dragon and give them the equivalent of 1 HP to add fake difficulty to an encounter".

[Boci]

Also for the monster thing, it made sense to give monsters rolls in 4e when the default encounter set up was 1 monster per PC, and the idea of the whole party facing 1 monster was the equivalent to a legendary actions monsters in 5e. Without that aspect of encounter design I'm not sure how useful monster tags would be, when a decent chunk of encounters can still be just 1 or 2 monsters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A fourth CR, based on out of combat utility, mostly for spells that Conjure creatures based on their CR.

and a fifth cr: "ability to synergise with other monsters"
Because some gms toss intentionally monsters that benefits from the help of each other then undervalue the actual difficulty of the fight for XP rewards due to that.

Neither of these is readily calculable from just the monster itself. And frankly, the solution to the Conjure line is to gut it and replace it with the Summon line entirely. Or some other thing that prevents monster-book diving. Same, I'd say, with the polymorph line.

Also for the monster thing, it made sense to give monsters rolls in 4e when the default encounter set up was 1 monster per PC, and the idea of the whole party facing 1 monster was the equivalent to a legendary actions monsters in 5e. Without that aspect of encounter design I'm not sure how useful monster tags would be, when a decent chunk of encounters can still be just 1 or 2 monsters.

In my experience, any 5e fight with 1 or 2 monsters is a joke. Even if those monsters are much beefier than the party. The sweet spot for 5e is roughly 1.5-2 monsters per PC. Those solo fights? Those are the garnish. They can be nicely cinematic, but they're inevitably going to be pushovers. Unless you miscalibrate or the party's having a bad day, in which case they're un-fun TPK-fodder. Even with Legendary Actions.

If I were to actually calculate the adventuring day budget (I stopped a long time ago), I'd rewrite that table of modifiers to make 1 monster worth 1/2 the XP (for adventuring day budget, not actual XP awarded), 2 monsters worth 1x, etc. Basically dropping everything down a bit.

I only DM'd low-level 4e, but my vague impression was similar--even the Solo-class monsters really weren't solo-class threats of the level they said they were. They were generally slogs (because that's the way that edition erred) rather than rocket tag, but generally solo monsters are, were, and always have been a waste of time and effort for anything intended to actually threaten the party (as opposed to just creating a spectacle, at which they're pretty good).

[Boci]

In my experience, any 5e fight with 1 or 2 monsters is a joke.

Not my experience. Its always a risk with a single monster and it does happen but not always, and even just 2 monster in my experience ensures the encounter won't be a pushover. The one time I threw a monster with legendary actions at the party it definitely wasn't easy for them.

[Eldariel]

I agree, a single number is needlessly reductionistic especially since they already have a (rough) framework for offensive and defensive CR, seems silly not to display it.

As an addendum, I feel another number that would be really useful would be a separate "summoning/shapeshifting level" where the value of a creature as a summon/shapeshift form is assigned separately so that CR doesn't get used for systems it's ill-suited for. This would deal with issues like Pixies, Babaus, Korreds or Glabrezus or such being of totally inappropriate CR for their summoning strength due to spells they've got available: their CR is for their damage and durability, not for what kind of boost they can provide to PC allies and yet spells that interact with such simply give you access to supercheap spells (Conjure Woodland Beings for 8 Pixies is so brokenly stupid in spite of Pixies' lack of durability that I can't imagine it ever flying in any table and yet Pixie is only one of the THREE options for the CR 1/4 part of the spell in the MM so unless DM specifically goes out of their way to not give specific creatures for power reasons, they're gonna appear sooner or later). This would make all the shapeshifting and summoning spells much easier to balance while still letting you get real creatures as opposed to these weird fake-statblocks Tasha's versions get (with weird issues like lacking HD so Shepherd's Mighty Summons doesn't work with them).

[Oramac]

Fourth edition did exactly this. It also based hit points and damage and stuff on monster category, because asymmetrical design, but there were a lot of clever design ideas in there.

(The categories, for reference, were skirmisher, controller, soldier, brute, artillery, and lurker)

4e wasn't great D&D in and of itself. That said, I have found incredibly good use of some of its features and tricks in 5e combat. Pick a 4e statblock and steal some of the unique monster features to tack on to an appropriate 5e monster, and you have a wonderfully unique and interesting bad guy. It pretty much throws CR out the window, but most people do that anyway.

In my experience, any 5e fight with 1 or 2 monsters is a joke.

I'm probably the wrong person to say this, but I fully disagree. I'm the wrong person because I homebrew or modify nearly every monster I throw at my players. But, especially with my above statement about stealing ideas from 4e, a one or two monster fight is definitely not a joke.

[qube]

While I do agree that 1 number is too limited, I do think the 4E way (1 number + description word) is superior to 3 numbers - as it's easier to flesh out encounters.

[Porcupinata]

I don't really think you need three numbers, but two numbers are useful:

1. When this monster is encountered as part of a group (either all the same or mixed), how much difficulty does it contribute to the encounter?
   
2. Does this monster have any abilities outside the norm (particularly high damage, effects with difficult saves, immunities, etc.) that mean that parties below a certain level threshold will struggle with it above and beyond the difficulty contribution listed above.

Basically the first number is additive with whatever other monsters are in the encounter with it (with a potential multiplier for how much the monsters outnumber the party and vice versa), and is a good - or at least reasonable - guide to how difficult the overall encounter is; and the second is a guideline for being careful about putting the monster in an encounter against a low level party even if the first number would indicate that the encounter is okay for them.

Of course, 5e already has this. The first number is the XP Value and the second number is the CR.

Encounters are built by XP Value, not CR, and it is the total XP Value of monsters that is compared to the party's size and level to indicate the general difficulty of the encounter in the encounter rules.

CR theoretically just acts as a guideline for "this monster has abilities that might be hard for lower level characters to deal with".

So the two numbers work together:

• High CR, Low XP Value - this monster will be tricky for lower level characters to deal with, but assuming the characters are of sufficient level to deal with its abilities then it isn't much of a threat and doesn't contribute much to an encounter.
• Balanced CR and XP Value - this monster works as expected in encounters.
• Low CR, High XP Value - although this monster is tough, it has nothing that particularly needs characters of a higher level to deal with; so it's safe to put it in encounters for lower level characters even if it makes up the bulk of the encounter's XP budget.

This, I think, is the intent behind 5e having separate CR and XP Values for monsters. Unfortunately it's really badly explained. People look at the CR of a monster and immediately assume that this value means it's a balanced encounter for a group of characters of that level, which is actually what monster's XP Value measures.

The difference between CR and XP Value needs to be much more clearly explained in both the DMG encounter guidelines and the MM.